ST. PETERSBURG - Secret negotiations. Confidentiality agreements. Broken promises.

The public debate over the Tampa Bay Rays' $450-million stadium proposal suddenly has shifted from the pros and cons of the proposal to what city officials knew and when they knew it.

And what they still may know but aren't sharing.

The questions, becoming more intense in recent days, have sidetracked the stadium debate at a critical time for the Rays, who are campaigning to win support for the downtown ballpark. While some city officials have downplayed the controversy, opposition to the waterfront ballpark is becoming more organized.

"We're just waiting for the sword to drop," said stadium critic Faith Andrews Bedford, 62, who told the City Council last week she felt betrayed. "What else is the city hiding?"

Mayor Rick Baker rebutted any suggestion that the city is keeping information from the public. "The reality is, we are engaging the community and we will continue to engage the community."

The most recent questions focus on Al Lang Field, the current spring training home of the Rays and site of the proposed new $450-million stadium.

The 10 acres is considered a park in the city charter. That's why it cannot be sold or leased for more than five years without a citywide referendum.

But city zoning maps never reflected this. Before last year, no downtown park did. New maps approved in August changed this. Except for Al Lang.

Senior development administrator Rick Mussett said in August that zoning the waterfront ballpark as a park would tie the city's hands. He never said why.

City Council members, who say they did not know about the Rays' proposal in August, said they wanted to "address" the Al Lang question anyway.

Whether that means changing the zoning is what residents and city leaders are arguing over.

The council met last week but did not agree to make the zoning change. The zoning decision only matters if the Rays' proposal falls through. But the issue has galvanized residents opposed to the new stadium. They wonder if something else is afoot.

City officials say secrecy claims are a red herring. The city was complying with state law and nothing was agreed to while talks remained confidential. "Do we have an image problem?" asked City Council Chairman Jamie Bennett. "On something like this, I'd be surprised if we didn't."